# The Natural Origins of Pokémon



## Furiianda (Jun 13, 2011)

*The Natural Origins of Pokémon*

Interesting article I found when looking through some comics!

http://www.bogleech.com/pokemonzoo.html
It details some of the stranger creatures Pokémon are based off of.

You may have heard a few of the earlier ones in the article (such as Rafflesia being the Vileplume flower and Psyduck/Golduck being rather platypus-like) but it covers a lot of other, more obscure ones too. They also use some very nice pictures throughout the article. It's pretty well researched, compared to just guessing what a Pokémon's design has drawn influence from!

Also Woobat/Swoobat things are totally adorable. (: Aaaand the Manaphy thing... 
Anyway, it's an interesting read, especially if you haven't paid much attention to your Pokédex entries and what they say the animal type is... or if you have... well, either or.


----------



## Lili (Jun 13, 2011)

*Re: The Natural Origins of Pokémon*

If Honduran White Bats are so adorable, why are (S)Woobats so ugly? D:


----------



## Alxprit (Jun 13, 2011)

*Re: The Natural Origins of Pokémon*

Wasn't expecting it to update for the fifth generation. Huh. At least the Phyllidae look cool.


----------



## sv_01 (Jun 14, 2011)

*Re: The Natural Origins of Pokémon*

They should have mentioned that the Ninja bugs can also be mistaken for beetles. They look more like beetles than bees or flies.
I don't understand why someone could think Gorebyss was a dolphin. I recognized it as a fish.
The Hoenn fossils and Vileplume are already well-known. And the former should definitely be Rock/Water.
Hadn't anyone known Relicanth's origin before?
They forgot to mention Gloom and Venusaur's flower... Bellossom and Lilligant are not so obvious.
I think I knew about the Victreebel plant before I knew about the Rafflesia. I was interested in carnivorous plants as a little girl.
If Raticate is based on a water creature, why isn't it part Water? Oh, right, they thought that Normal was only compatible with Flying back then.
Golduck doesn't look so much like a platypus anymore.
I recognized Stunfisk before I read this.


----------



## Byrus (Jun 16, 2011)

*Re: The Natural Origins of Pokémon*

Yeah, this is a fun read. I didn't realise this had been updated for the fifth generation, some interesting stuff there, especially on Karrablast.



> If Honduran White Bats are so adorable, why are (S)Woobats so ugly? D:


 WHAT. >(


----------



## Adriane (Jun 16, 2011)

*Re: The Natural Origins of Pokémon*

I knew most of this already, but still an interesting read. Some of the photos freak me out, though. Especially the lampreys.


----------



## Mai (Jun 16, 2011)

*Re: The Natural Origins of Pokémon*



Lili said:


> If Honduran White Bats are so adorable, why are (S)Woobats so ugly? D:


Blasphemy! Woobat is eh, but swoobat are the best thing ever, and they are much better than zubat.

Anyway, gulpers are weird. I never cared for huntail in the first place, but gorebyss's origin has creeped me out slightly.


----------



## sv_01 (Jun 16, 2011)

*Re: The Natural Origins of Pokémon*

Shuckle looks strange. If it's based on an insect, why does it have tentacles?
As for the bats, yes, Swoobat might look better than Zubat and Golbat, but Crobat looks better. I have never considered the Unova bats beautiful or something. I consider fluffy bats as strange as powerful cocoon equivalents that aren't reptiles.


----------



## Professor Wesker (Jun 18, 2011)

*Re: The Natural Origins of Pokémon*

Ugh, Antlion close-ups DO NOT WANT.

Nice article, I never knew Raticate wasn't actually based off a "rat" by definition. And Sea Butterflies are very beautiful! I want one!


----------



## Crazy Linoone (Jun 18, 2011)

*Re: The Natural Origins of Pokémon*

Eh, I always thought gorebyss was based on one of those long-snouted tropical sea fishes that are closely related to sea horses (you can tell that I don't remember what it's called...), but I guess a Long-nosed Chimaera looks a lot closer to a gorebyss. 

Is it sad that I know most of these already?


----------



## Sesquipedalian! (Jun 19, 2011)

*Re: The Natural Origins of Pokémon*



sv_01 said:


> Shuckle looks strange. If it's based on an insect, why does it have tentacles?


Shuckle's limbs appear to be more normal terrestrial limbs than tentacles in my personal opinion - I suppose the factor of being quite limp is reflective of the fact that the source insects hold vestigial legs themselves. 

As for Gorebyss, I had never previously made the connection to the Long-nosed Chimaera but it certainly appears to fit aesthetically.


----------



## Lord of the Fireflies (Jul 7, 2011)

*Re: The Natural Origins of Pokémon*

How are Machokes and Haunters and Kadabras and bros supposed to evolve in nature?

/randomquestion


----------



## Blastoise Fortooate (Jul 7, 2011)

*Re: The Natural Origins of Pokémon*

I always figures that they needed some given level of 'variety' or something, and that being given away to another trainer could count enough for most.


----------

